Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing

This is a discussion on Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by t1meismoney
I'm wondering why the article stressed that he was a ex-marine so much when it has nothing to do with the ...

I'm wondering why the article stressed that he was a ex-marine so much when it has nothing to do with the story. Should people get treated any different because of what one of their occupations used to be or do they just want their article to get more attention?

"Vanoverberghe, who admits to understanding Edinger’s legal right to bear arms and even carry it openly, cannot come to grips for Clay’s reason for refusing to simply take it off and go vote."

^ It's funny how they still don't understand why most of us refuse to go to places that don't let us carry. It is our right, our lives, and our loved ones we put at risk when we are unable to carry. Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't even take the slightest risk just to vote/eat/shop.

If you won't take " even the slightest risk just to vote" please don't.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein

I do all the time. Or at least I try too. I see nothing wrong with convincing a person ,who is hell bent on having the Government take my property from me and giving it to him, not to vote.
Its no different than him trying to convince others who agree with him from voting to take my property.

EDIT: You must remember those 'Get out the vote' campaigns target exactly who they want to get out and vote. They only go after those who they believe will vote like them.

Michael

Last edited by mlr1m; May 13th, 2012 at 08:34 PM.
Reason: I made an oopsie

I do all the time. Or at least I try too. I see nothing wrong with convincing a person ,who is hell bent on having the Government take my property from me and giving it to him, not to vote.
Its no different than him trying to convince others who agree with him from voting to take my property.

EDIT: You must remember those 'Get out the vote' campaigns target exactly who they want to get out and vote. They only go after those who they believe will vote like them.Michael

I guess it depends on who you know. The very few ones I know who vote the way you don't like wouldn't listen to me anyway. They know how I vote. My telling them not to vote would only encourage them more to vote, the wrong way to my mind. Those who would vote in a considered and logical fashion (conservative) are the ones I would encourage to vote and if we don't want to live in the mess we are currently heading to (at warp speed), we need each and everyone of them to vote.
I think t1meismoney is probably one of the later.

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

I think they should have prevented him from making such a big, public ordeal with this "stunt", as it has been described, by letting him vote while armed, since it is obviously not illegal for him to do so. That would have taught him a lesson about trying to pull "stunts" like this.

Seriously, though, I CC exclusively but agree that if OC is legal and that is how you choose to carry, go for it. If they, the state, doesn't want OC at polling locations, they should pass a law that makes it illegal. Until then, if they can't find a specific law against it in a reasonably short amount of time, they should not stop him. LEOs should not use their own logic to police with. It isn't their job to determine right from wrong. It is their job to determine legal from illegal.

Seriously, though, I CC exclusively but agree that if OC is legal and that is how you choose to carry, go for it. If they, the state, doesn't want OC at polling locations, they should pass a law that makes it illegal. Until then, if they can't find a specific law against it in a reasonably short amount of time, they should not stop him. LEOs should not use their own logic to police with. It isn't their job to determine right from wrong. It is their job to determine legal from illegal.

Well said. To reiterate my previous comments: they were enabled and allowed to enforce what they thought the law should be or, what they wanted the law to be, not what the law is. This warrants corrective action.

Originally Posted by Adameeski

I think they should have prevented him from making such a big, public ordeal with this "stunt", as it has been described, by letting him vote while armed, since it is obviously not illegal for him to do so. That would have taught him a lesson about trying to pull "stunts" like this.

And upon being unable to find where his actions were prohibited, if they had, we would likely have never heard about this. Undoubtedly, it would have still be raised through backroom channels and there would be clarification made or possibly laws passed, but there would have been no "stunt". But, no, these "nice volunteers" had to use their implied power to force their will, wrongfully on another and it seems like the only type of message that is going to be clear enough for these dolts is a 2x4 up side the head, which they may now be getting.

@Hopyard, I don't agree with (how I read your position) that he should have acquiesced in this situation, but I think you are correct that the final outcome will ultimately be negative.

So far, no one has posted IN code on the authority (if any) of an LEO to disarm someone.

Does anyone have that? Is it at the officer's discretion for officer safety? For public safety?
What is the exact wording of IN code on this aspect of the issue.

In most places once an officer is on a scene, and it doesn't matter much why he is there and he could have been called by
a nervous nel, MWG call, he can disarm folks for his own safety while investigating and interviewing whomever.

Why does the person involved here think he should be treated differently? Does he think a polling place is a sanctuary from the law?

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

So far, no one has posted IN code on the authority (if any) of an LEO to disarm someone.

Does anyone have that? Is it at the officer's discretion for officer safety? For public safety?
What is the exact wording of IN code on this aspect of the issue.

I would think that hardly matters. After a MWAG call, even if he could have disarmed him (there was no law being broken though) he would had to release him and let him go on his way. What would he have done, said "you're not allowed to come back here with that because I'm here and I'm a cop."?

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

I would think that hardly matters. After a MWAG call, even if he could have disarmed him (there was no law being broken though) he would had to release him and let him go on his way. What would he have done, said "you're not allowed to come back here with that because I'm here and I'm a cop."?

I don't want to speculate on the "why?" I want to know what IN code says about the discretion of an officer
to disarm someone, and also the discretion of an officer to remove someone perhaps from a theater, or order someone to
leave a locations---e.g., "move along" --that is, what discretion does IN law give to an LEO to act as
an officer for the good of public safety as he sees it at that moment in time.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

So far, no one has posted IN code on the authority (if any) of an LEO to disarm someone.

Does anyone have that? Is it at the officer's discretion for officer safety? For public safety?
What is the exact wording of IN code on this aspect of the issue.

In most places once an officer is on a scene, and it doesn't matter much why he is there and he could have been called by
a nervous nel, MWG call, he can disarm folks for his own safety while investigating and interviewing whomever.

Why does the person involved here think he should be treated differently? Does he think a polling place is a sanctuary from the law?

I have no idea where you are going with this. Where are you getting this from "Why does the person involved here think he should be treated differently? Does he think a polling place is a sanctuary from the law?"
And obviously a polling place is not a place to go for sanctuary since nobody there seems to know the law. As far as maybe disarming him while they interview him I can see where that can be up to an officers discretion. But not for the reason of voting. What I am saying is this: If they want to disarm him while they interview him I can see that. But at the point they realize he is not a danger to anyone (and they were not called for that reason, they all thought he could not vote armed) then I do not see how they can dis arm him for the purposes of voting. That is the issue. Even with your logic they should allow him to have his weapon and vote.